linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] remoteproc: Make core operations optional

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ff9254d9-6a17-cae5-9f41-2c60303a38ec@st.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:18:59 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <ohad@...ery.com>
CC:     <loic.pallardy@...com>, <s-anna@...com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] remoteproc: Make core operations optional

Hi Mathieu,

On 4/24/20 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> When synchronizing with a remote processor, it is entirely possible that
> the remoteproc core is not the life cycle manager.  In such a case core
> operations don't exist and should not be called.

What about ops in remote_core.c?
Applying the series, seems that at least rproc->ops->panic rproc->ops->da_to_va 
can be called tested with undefined ops structure.

Regards, 

Arnaud

> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> index b389dc79da81..59fc871743c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ rproc_find_carveout_by_name(struct rproc *rproc, const char *name, ...);
>  static inline
>  int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> -	if (rproc->ops->sanity_check)
> +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->sanity_check)
>  		return rproc->ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  static inline
>  u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> -	if (rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
> +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
>  		return rproc->ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  static inline
>  int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> -	if (rproc->ops->load)
> +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->load)
>  		return rproc->ops->load(rproc, fw);
>  
>  	return -EINVAL;
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  
>  static inline int rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> -	if (rproc->ops->parse_fw)
> +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->parse_fw)
>  		return rproc->ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static inline
>  int rproc_handle_rsc(struct rproc *rproc, u32 rsc_type, void *rsc, int offset,
>  		     int avail)
>  {
> -	if (rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
> +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
>  		return rproc->ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type, rsc, offset,
>  					      avail);
>  
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static inline
>  struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
>  						   const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> -	if (rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
>  		return rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
>  
>  	return NULL;
>